Mr. Speaker, that was well done.
I am going to try to convince my colleagues in the House, those on the other side in particular, to have a look at the current MP pension plan. I listened to government House leader who was getting a little excited about the fact that he has the right to stand and encourage pay raises and that sort of thing.
Others in the House have an equal amount of passion in why pay raises should not be. The fact that they are in an omnibus bill we have to vote for one thing and another. They may not like one thing that is in there for one party or another and we may equally not like some other things. I think all of us in the House understand that.
I want to tell members opposite that if they want to heckle I am in a good mood for it. I think they had better keep peace over there.
I want to talk about the current MP pension plan. I would like my colleagues to listen for a few minutes about why I believe that what has to occur in the House is some form of independent actuary or some consulting firm, not a full-blown inquiry but some form of assessment of the plan.
The reason this is required is that there are about 263 members currently involved in the plan. There are those who were elected prior to 1993 who have 5% of their salary each year going into the fund. There were some changes relevant to that plan in 1994.
What happened was at that time in 1994 a number of members from all three parties opted out of the plan because they did not like it. Also at that time more changes were made to the plan, that is those elected subsequent to 1993 now receive 4% of their salary a year, and some other changes. That gives pre-1993, post-1993 and those who have opted out.
There are also others in the House—and one of my colleagues is involved in that regard—who are elected at this time and had been members of parliament at some other time in the past. They have broken service for which basically there has not been any arrangements made. There have to be some rules for that as well. That is the fourth kind. Then there are those MPs who are less than age 55, may retire under the post-1993 plan and now are able to get a severance. That is different from the other plan.
We have five situations. As one of my colleagues said we have another situation where we have severance which will ultimately end up in an RRSP.
We are talking about a total of 301 people with the most convoluted pension plan I have ever seen in my life, and I can tell the House I have seen a lot of them. For the benefit of all concerned I am not asking at this point that members opt out of the plan. I am asking that the House consider some kind of avenue where a real actuarial firm—no political appointments but real people out there—looks at the plan and makes some recommendations that maybe everybody can live with: the taxpayer, the general public, the average worker, those who have opted out and those who want to opt out.
It is such a convoluted exercise that something must be done. It will not go away. It is true we have established something here today. For my colleagues to have RRSPs to get them through later life is a good idea.
If we look at the concept that the B.C. government has come up with, it is quite similar to what we have designed today except that the government says it is taking 9% of the pay and putting it into RRSPs and the member contributes equally. That is exactly where we are headed.
I think it is a natural process to go through. What we are looking at here is an evolution of a pension plan that just got under the back side of the taxpayers so much that it forces change.
Now we have seen an acceptance by others in this House to understand that a pension of some form is needed. Perhaps with the wishes of my colleagues we acknowledge that it is not needed to the extent that it is given to some.
A number of people have given up dollars out of this. We accept that on this side. I take exception to the Conservative member who took shots at us for this.
We need something reasonable. We do not expect to gorge off the public. If this were just a flash in the pan from 1993, that would be different but it is not. Our members who were elected in 1997 want the plan changed as well. They are sitting here hoping that there is some agreement ultimately to change this plan. They are embarrassed by being in it.
Ultimately something has to give. I think the members of this House would be well advised before we turn this into another fight again to at least have a look at it. We are not asking them to opt out. We are asking them to have a look at it.
That is our position. That is where we are at. From here on in we hope we look at a government and an institution that look after their members in the same way private industry looks after its members.